Tired of every religion thinking they are right.

^^ I don't know if any text showed up for anyone else but I don't see any :lol:

well what I typed was examples of how Muslims/Chirstians have destroyed killed and burned other religious follwers/text/things that disagrred with there religions

^^ I don't know if any text showed up for anyone else but I don't see any :lol:

well what I typed was examples of how Muslims/Chirstians have destroyed killed and burned other religious follwers/text/things that disagrred with there religions

mechwarrior_bob

Yes, and this is unfortunate, but first off, these events happened thousands of years ago (for Christendom, anyway). :| They're also not a part of doctrine; it is not a rule that these things must be done. If it were, then yes, Christianity would be a bona-fide cult.

3eyedrazorback: While using the example...down the telephone line...meaning, as word goes, it changes. But, with the Bible, nothing has changed. Something so precious and perfect like it can't be changed. It's the Word of God. Not some fairy tale.

You don't know if it's been changed because you've only read the most recently mistranslated version. We, however, (we being the people who have heard of the Council of Ephesus, Trent, Nicea and all the other ecumenical councils and who know that a 2,000 year old book that's essentially a translation of a translation of a translation of a translation of a translation of a... you get the point, those of us who aren't ignorant) do know it's been changed. For instance, King James changed something that should have been "Don't respond to violence with violence" to "Resist not evil" because he didn't want people fighting his unjust policies.

3eyedrazorback:It was ficticious. It was written solely as a fictional book.

But if you were alive in the year 4,000 and found it then, not knowing it was fiction, the logic you're using to support your belief in the Bible could also be used to support your belief in the Da Vinci Code 2,000 years from now.

3eyedrazorback: Go ahead. Read it. Find something false, and get back to me on it.

Here's a quick list of things from the Bible that have been proven wrong or that are impossible: The Firmament, outer space being full of water, stars being small enough to stomp on, the earth being supported by pillars and flat, every single species of animal in the world living within walking distance of Noah's house, every single species of insect, plant and fish miraculously coming back to life after the flood, the fact that geologists have said that the earth was not covered in water, talking snakes (they don't have the organs for it), the earth being created in six days, the sun being created after the earth (did he put the earth in orbit afterwards?), dinosaur fossils that prove that dinosaurs were alive for millions of years and millions of years before man came along (disproves the creation myth) and many more things that I'm not going to waste my time mentioning as I've already found plenty of things false and now I'm getting back to you.

No Religion can be proven.aaronmullan

Here's a quick list of things from the Bible that have been proven wrong or that are impossible: The Firmament, outer space being full of water, stars being small enough to stomp on, the earth being supported by pillars and flat, every single species of animal in the world living within walking distance of Noah's house, every single species of insect, plant and fish miraculously coming back to life after the flood, the fact that geologists have said that the earth was not covered in water, talking snakes (they don't have the organs for it), the earth being created in six days, the sun being created after the earth (did he put the earth in orbit afterwards?), dinosaur fossils that prove that dinosaurs were alive for millions of years and millions of years before man came along (disproves the creation myth) and many more things that I'm not going to waste my time mentioning as I've already found plenty of things false and now I'm getting back to you.

WhiteWorld

I'm not a christian neither an Atheist but there are some things I want to point out.

So you are saying that if a geologist say that America is actually living in clouds, would you believe it?

Which brings me to another point, the fact that scientific stated = truth. I think thats stupid. Scientists have been wrong many a times and there are some outrageous theories produced by scientists too. To me, Scientists are making a dictionary. They just make up a word to anything they dont understand and explain it with that word.

Moving an object = Scientific word called "Push".

Looks like they are making a world a favour by making the sentence with as less words as possible such as "Parralex error" that sure was scientific.

A car stops, why? Why does the fricking car stop? There must be a reason ... I know the car is fricking ... Just add a little pazzaz into it and call it "Friction" something like that or all of them were hit hard on the head some part of their life like Newton. "The apple fell... this falling ... We should call it something... I know! Gravity. Marvel at my genious."

All they are doing is inventing words to add in a dictionary IMO and they use these words to make an explaination which people think are "facts" because they are "Scientists". Last I checked, scientists claimed the Earth was Flat. Then round and then ecliptical.

[QUOTE="WhiteWorld"]

Here's a quick list of things from the Bible that have been proven wrong or that are impossible: The Firmament, outer space being full of water, stars being small enough to stomp on, the earth being supported by pillars and flat, every single species of animal in the world living within walking distance of Noah's house, every single species of insect, plant and fish miraculously coming back to life after the flood, the fact that geologists have said that the earth was not covered in water, talking snakes (they don't have the organs for it), the earth being created in six days, the sun being created after the earth (did he put the earth in orbit afterwards?), dinosaur fossils that prove that dinosaurs were alive for millions of years and millions of years before man came along (disproves the creation myth) and many more things that I'm not going to waste my time mentioning as I've already found plenty of things false and now I'm getting back to you.

UltraZero

I'm not a christian neither an Atheist but there are some things I want to point out.

So you are saying that if a geologist say that America is actually living in clouds, would you believe it?

Which brings me to another point, the fact that scientific stated = truth. I think thats stupid. Scientists have been wrong many a times and there are some outrageous theories produced by scientists too. To me, Scientists are making a dictionary. They just make up a word to anything they dont understand and explain it with that word.

Moving an object = Scientific word called "Push".

Looks like they are making a world a favour by making the sentence with as less words as possible such as "Parralex error" that sure was scientific.

A car stops, why? Why does the fricking car stop? There must be a reason ... I know the car is fricking ... Just add a little pazzaz into it and call it "Friction" something like that or all of them were hit hard on the head some part of their life like Newton. "The apple fell... this falling ... We should call it something... I know! Gravity. Marvel at my genious."

All they are doing is inventing words to add in a dictionary IMO and they use these words to make an explaination which people think are "facts" because they are "Scientists". Last I checked, scientists claimed the Earth was Flat. Then round and then ecliptical.

[QUOTE="WhiteWorld"]

Here's a quick list of things from the Bible that have been proven wrong or that are impossible: The Firmament, outer space being full of water, stars being small enough to stomp on, the earth being supported by pillars and flat, every single species of animal in the world living within walking distance of Noah's house, every single species of insect, plant and fish miraculously coming back to life after the flood, the fact that geologists have said that the earth was not covered in water, talking snakes (they don't have the organs for it), the earth being created in six days, the sun being created after the earth (did he put the earth in orbit afterwards?), dinosaur fossils that prove that dinosaurs were alive for millions of years and millions of years before man came along (disproves the creation myth) and many more things that I'm not going to waste my time mentioning as I've already found plenty of things false and now I'm getting back to you.

UltraZero

I'm not a christian neither an Atheist but there are some things I want to point out.

So you are saying that if a geologist say that America is actually living in clouds, would you believe it?

Which brings me to another point, the fact that scientific stated = truth. I think thats stupid. Scientists have been wrong many a times and there are some outrageous theories produced by scientists too. To me, Scientists are making a dictionary. They just make up a word to anything they dont understand and explain it with that word.

Moving an object = Scientific word called "Push".

Looks like they are making a world a favour by making the sentence with as less words as possible such as "Parralex error" that sure was scientific.

A car stops, why? Why does the fricking car stop? There must be a reason ... I know the car is fricking ... Just add a little pazzaz into it and call it "Friction" something like that or all of them were hit hard on the head some part of their life like Newton. "The apple fell... this falling ... We should call it something... I know! Gravity. Marvel at my genious."

All they are doing is inventing words to add in a dictionary IMO and they use these words to make an explaination which people think are "facts" because they are "Scientists". Last I checked, scientists claimed the Earth was Flat. Then round and then ecliptical.

[QUOTE="aaronmullan"]No Religion can be proven.hamstergeddon

the past 5 pages is my proof ;)

Of course people are going to think their religion is right. If a Christian thought Islam was the right religion, then there would be no sense in him being a Christian.needled24-7

All truth claims exclude their opposite.

[QUOTE="needled24-7"]Of course people are going to think their religion is right. If a Christian thought Islam was the right religion, then there would be no sense in him being a Christian.Theokhoth

All truth claims exclude their opposite.

[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"][QUOTE="aaronmullan"]No Religion can be proven.aaronmullan

the past 5 pages is my proof ;)

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="needled24-7"]Of course people are going to think their religion is right. If a Christian thought Islam was the right religion, then there would be no sense in him being a Christian.needled24-7

All truth claims exclude their opposite.

That it's only logical for a person who follows a religion to think his religion is right. All truth claims exclude their opposite; it's one of the first laws of logic. If Oregon is North of Arizona, then it cannot be South of Arizona. I was agreeing with you.

[QUOTE="aaronmullan"]

[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"][QUOTE="aaronmullan"]No Religion can be proven.hamstergeddon

the past 5 pages is my proof ;)

I believe in Science.

I cannot begin to explain how dunb that post was. Do you have more than a middle school level education?
hamstergeddon

You dont need to, I already do know how dumb it is.

Just want to have a discussion against science for once, even tho, I'll fail at winning at it..

So are you saying that scientific laws that have been tested time after time, with the same thing resulting time after time, are wrong? Where are your credintials?needled24-7

Yes.

Scientific laws, UltraZero laws, laws of some crazy kook. If what they say is tested to be true, do they become facts? Last I heard they said that Pluto was a planet. Why isn't it a planet now? I'm sure it was tested more than once.

[QUOTE="aaronmullan"]

[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"][QUOTE="aaronmullan"]No Religion can be proven.hamstergeddon

the past 5 pages is my proof ;)

Earth being flat was common sense, look at where that lead us to.

Last I checked, scientists claimed the Earth was Flat. Then round and then ecliptical.UltraZero

Google.
In early Mesopotamian thought, the world was portrayed as a flat disk floating in the ocean, and this forms the premise for early Greek maps such as those of Anaximander and Hecataeus of Miletus.

Around 330 BC, Aristotle provided observational evidence for the spherical Earth, noting that travelers going south see southern constellations rise higher above the horizon. He argued that this was only possible if their horizon was at an angle to northerners' horizon and thus the Earth's surface could not be flat.

[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"][QUOTE="aaronmullan"]

[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"][QUOTE="aaronmullan"]No Religion can be proven.UltraZero

the past 5 pages is my proof ;)

Earth being flat was common sense, look at where that lead us to.

Knowledge that the Earth is round?

im not one for religion, it is the largest cause of war in the worlds history, and almost all religion seems completly barbaric to me.

i hope the flame gaurds are working for this: jesus christ can suck on ma ballz.

im not one for religion, it is the largest cause of war in the worlds history, and almost all religion seems completly barbaric to me.

i hope the flame gaurds are working for this:

0diablo0

And here I thought land was the largest cause of war. . . .followed by money. . . . .followed by politics. . . . . . . .

Religion has caused a vast minority of wars in history.

Oh, and the expletive? Not funny.

[QUOTE="UltraZero"]Last I checked, scientists claimed the Earth was Flat. Then round and then ecliptical.scorch-62

Google.
In early Mesopotamian thought, the world was portrayed as a flat disk floating in the ocean, and this forms the premise for early Greek maps such as those of Anaximander and Hecataeus of Miletus.

Around 330 BC, Aristotle provided observational evidence for the spherical Earth, noting that travelers going south see southern constellations rise higher above the horizon. He argued that this was only possible if their horizon was at an angle to northerners' horizon and thus the Earth's surface could not be flat.

Which brings another point of mine, Scientists can be wrong.

[QUOTE="needled24-7"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="needled24-7"]Of course people are going to think their religion is right. If a Christian thought Islam was the right religion, then there would be no sense in him being a Christian.Theokhoth

All truth claims exclude their opposite.

That it's only logical for a person who follows a religion to think his religion is right. All truth claims exclude their opposite; it's one of the first laws of logic. If Oregon is North of Arizona, then it cannot be South of Arizona. I was agreeing with you.

[QUOTE="scorch-62"][QUOTE="UltraZero"]Last I checked, scientists claimed the Earth was Flat. Then round and then ecliptical.UltraZero

Google.
In early Mesopotamian thought, the world was portrayed as a flat disk floating in the ocean, and this forms the premise for early Greek maps such as those of Anaximander and Hecataeus of Miletus.

Around 330 BC, Aristotle provided observational evidence for the spherical Earth, noting that travelers going south see southern constellations rise higher above the horizon. He argued that this was only possible if their horizon was at an angle to northerners' horizon and thus the Earth's surface could not be flat.

Which brings another point of mine, Scientists can be wrong.

Most modern human knowledge was discovered by the Greeks and Romans in BC times. :|

It was actually Christian scholars in the Middle Ages who brought the most recent thought of a flat Earth (which was back in the times of Christopher Columbus). Then, it was debated whether or not the Earth was flat. In the time of the Greeks, it was generally accepted as fact that Earth was a sphere because of discoveries such as the Earth's circumference.

Science is rarely wrong because it always manages to correct itself in due time.

[QUOTE="UltraZero"][QUOTE="scorch-62"][QUOTE="UltraZero"]Last I checked, scientists claimed the Earth was Flat. Then round and then ecliptical.scorch-62

Google.
In early Mesopotamian thought, the world was portrayed as a flat disk floating in the ocean, and this forms the premise for early Greek maps such as those of Anaximander and Hecataeus of Miletus.

Around 330 BC, Aristotle provided observational evidence for the spherical Earth, noting that travelers going south see southern constellations rise higher above the horizon. He argued that this was only possible if their horizon was at an angle to northerners' horizon and thus the Earth's surface could not be flat.

Which brings another point of mine, Scientists can be wrong.

Most modern human knowledge was discovered by the Greeks and Romans in BC times. :|

It was actually Christian scholars in the Middle Ages who brought the most recent thought of a flat Earth (which was back in the times of Christopher Columbus). Then, it was debated whether or not the Earth was flat. In the time of the Greeks, it was generally accepted as fact that Earth was a sphere because of discoveries such as the Earth's circumference.

Science is rarely wrong because it always manages to correct itself in due time.

Your post also says Science manages to gets itself wrong in due time, "BC times - Sphere", "Middle ages - Flat".

I'm going to quote some wise words from Treebeard.

"I'm on nobody's side, because nobody's on my side."

That's why I neither believe, nor disapprove of God. I don't know whether he existed or not, and neither does anyone else. Were you there during the creation of everything, no. Was anyone else? No. Nothing can be approved, Nothing can be disapproved.

EDIT: One last point I was thinking about a while ago which came back to me.

During the Medieval times, religion played a major part of people's lives during the times they lived in. Also, the times they lived in was absolutely rubbish! And so what did they turn to.. Faith of course. Attending churches, pleasing their God hoping that there would be "A Better Thing" after this life. Now that we've left those times and science has given us advances in our way of life we can live this one happily and the % of young people turning to a religion is depleteing. Except in one area.. Africa.

[QUOTE="scorch-62"][QUOTE="UltraZero"][QUOTE="scorch-62"][QUOTE="UltraZero"]Last I checked, scientists claimed the Earth was Flat. Then round and then ecliptical.UltraZero

Google.
In early Mesopotamian thought, the world was portrayed as a flat disk floating in the ocean, and this forms the premise for early Greek maps such as those of Anaximander and Hecataeus of Miletus.

Around 330 BC, Aristotle provided observational evidence for the spherical Earth, noting that travelers going south see southern constellations rise higher above the horizon. He argued that this was only possible if their horizon was at an angle to northerners' horizon and thus the Earth's surface could not be flat.

Which brings another point of mine, Scientists can be wrong.

Most modern human knowledge was discovered by the Greeks and Romans in BC times. :|

It was actually Christian scholars in the Middle Ages who brought the most recent thought of a flat Earth (which was back in the times of Christopher Columbus). Then, it was debated whether or not the Earth was flat. In the time of the Greeks, it was generally accepted as fact that Earth was a sphere because of discoveries such as the Earth's circumference.

Science is rarely wrong because it always manages to correct itself in due time.

Your post also says Science manages to gets itself wrong in due time, "BC times - Sphere", "Middle ages - Flat".

Other than this post (and even then, it's only your quote), nowhere in there did I say that science gets itself wrong in due time. Last time I checked, sheperical Earth is scientific fact in this day and age. Everything else is nil.

I'm going to quote some wise words from Treebeard.

"I'm on nobody's side, because nobody's on my side."

That's why I neither believe, nor disapprove of God. I don't know whether he existed or not, and neither does anyone else. Were you there during the creation of everything, no. Was anyone else? No. Nothing can be approved, Nothing can be disapproved.

EDIT: One last point I was thinking about a while ago which came back to me.

During the Medieval times, religion played a major part of people's lives during the times they lived in. Also, the times they lived in was absolutely rubbish! And so what did they turn to.. Faith of course. Attending churches, pleasing their God hoping that there would be "A Better Thing" after this life. Now that we've left those times and science has given us advances in our way of life we can live this one happily and the % of young people turning to a religion is depleteing. Except in one area.. Africa.

Vampire_Turtle

And America. And Canada. And England. And Ireland. And India.:|

Medieval times were not necessarily bad because religion was a huge influence then. Did people turn to faith because things were bad, or were things bad because people turned to faith? Were the two even related? How do you know?

[QUOTE="UltraZero"][QUOTE="scorch-62"][QUOTE="UltraZero"][QUOTE="scorch-62"][QUOTE="UltraZero"]Last I checked, scientists claimed the Earth was Flat. Then round and then ecliptical.scorch-62

Google.
In early Mesopotamian thought, the world was portrayed as a flat disk floating in the ocean, and this forms the premise for early Greek maps such as those of Anaximander and Hecataeus of Miletus.

Around 330 BC, Aristotle provided observational evidence for the spherical Earth, noting that travelers going south see southern constellations rise higher above the horizon. He argued that this was only possible if their horizon was at an angle to northerners' horizon and thus the Earth's surface could not be flat.

Which brings another point of mine, Scientists can be wrong.

Most modern human knowledge was discovered by the Greeks and Romans in BC times. :|

It was actually Christian scholars in the Middle Ages who brought the most recent thought of a flat Earth (which was back in the times of Christopher Columbus). Then, it was debated whether or not the Earth was flat. In the time of the Greeks, it was generally accepted as fact that Earth was a sphere because of discoveries such as the Earth's circumference.

Science is rarely wrong because it always manages to correct itself in due time.

Your post also says Science manages to gets itself wrong in due time, "BC times - Sphere", "Middle ages - Flat".

Other than this post (and even then, it's only your quote), nowhere in there did I say that science gets itself wrong in due time. Last time I checked, sheperical Earth is scientific fact in this day and age. Everything else is nil.

Until another 100 or so years they'll say Earth isn't a planet like Pluto.

My point is that Science isn't somethng you should use to prove facts.

FYI, Last I read in school, Earth is ecliptical. Not sphere. Slight difference but in the world of science. THe slightest difference is a huge thing.

If you weren't certain you were right and everyone else was wrong you would probably be considered Agnostic.

[QUOTE="scorch-62"][QUOTE="UltraZero"][QUOTE="scorch-62"][QUOTE="UltraZero"][QUOTE="scorch-62"][QUOTE="UltraZero"]Last I checked, scientists claimed the Earth was Flat. Then round and then ecliptical.UltraZero

Google.
In early Mesopotamian thought, the world was portrayed as a flat disk floating in the ocean, and this forms the premise for early Greek maps such as those of Anaximander and Hecataeus of Miletus.

Around 330 BC, Aristotle provided observational evidence for the spherical Earth, noting that travelers going south see southern constellations rise higher above the horizon. He argued that this was only possible if their horizon was at an angle to northerners' horizon and thus the Earth's surface could not be flat.

Which brings another point of mine, Scientists can be wrong.

Most modern human knowledge was discovered by the Greeks and Romans in BC times. :|

It was actually Christian scholars in the Middle Ages who brought the most recent thought of a flat Earth (which was back in the times of Christopher Columbus). Then, it was debated whether or not the Earth was flat. In the time of the Greeks, it was generally accepted as fact that Earth was a sphere because of discoveries such as the Earth's circumference.

Science is rarely wrong because it always manages to correct itself in due time.

Your post also says Science manages to gets itself wrong in due time, "BC times - Sphere", "Middle ages - Flat".

Other than this post (and even then, it's only your quote), nowhere in there did I say that science gets itself wrong in due time. Last time I checked, sheperical Earth is scientific fact in this day and age. Everything else is nil.

My point is that Science isn't somethng you should use to prove facts.

Science is right ALOT more than it is wrong. Saying science shouldn't be used to prove things as fact is very stupid.

Science is right ALOT more than it is wrong. Saying science shouldn't be used to prove things as fact is very stupid.

-Austin-

Yet a doubt lingers and when using those facts against religeon is something I advise against.

Sure, Science is so great that it can't solve the century long Bermuda Triangle question (As far as I'm upto date) but it still is true on many points, I admit it.

[QUOTE="3eyedrazorback"]Here, maybe I'm not the certified man to ask about these questions, but you can go to this website and they'll answer your questions. Just humor me, and go to it. Linkharashawn

Alright that's enough. Stop trying to convert everyone here. Get out of this thread and stay out. Don't even think about posting again, buddy.

He;s not converting anyone. He's stating fact.

[QUOTE="scorch-62"]Other than this post (and even then, it's only your quote), nowhere in there did I say that science gets itself wrong in due time. Last time I checked, sheperical Earth is scientific fact in this day and age. Everything else is nil.UltraZero

Until another 100 or so years they'll say Earth isn't a planet like Pluto.

My point is that Science isn't somethng you should use to prove facts.

FYI, Last I read in school, Earth is ecliptical. Not sphere. Slight difference but in the world of science. THe slightest difference is a huge thing.

Last time I checked, the Earth was spherical and it's orbit was elliptical. But that little quote there about how science shouldn't be used to prove facts is laughable.

If you weren't certain you were right and everyone else was wrong you would probably be considered Agnostic.

-Austin-

"Just want to have a discussion against science for once, even tho, I'll fail at winning at it." Kinda sums it up.

My point is that using science to prove something to find false facts on religeon isn't something someone should do. Because there is a good religeous point I have that I want science to explain. A 1400 Year old story.

[QUOTE="-Austin-"]

Science is right ALOT more than it is wrong. Saying science shouldn't be used to prove things as fact is very stupid.

UltraZero

Yet a doubt lingers and when using those facts against religeon is something I advise against.

Sure, Science is so great that it can't solve the century long Bermuda Triangle question (As far as I'm upto date) but it still is true on many points, I admit it.

Science is more reliable than religion though. So obviously science is more apt to be correct than religion.

[QUOTE="UltraZero"][QUOTE="scorch-62"]Other than this post (and even then, it's only your quote), nowhere in there did I say that science gets itself wrong in due time. Last time I checked, sheperical Earth is scientific fact in this day and age. Everything else is nil.scorch-62

Until another 100 or so years they'll say Earth isn't a planet like Pluto.

My point is that Science isn't somethng you should use to prove facts.

FYI, Last I read in school, Earth is ecliptical. Not sphere. Slight difference but in the world of science. THe slightest difference is a huge thing.

Last time I checked, the Earth was spherical and it's orbit was elliptical. But that little quote there about how science shouldn't be used to prove facts is laughable.

Checked, My mistakes, I meant facts against religeon.

As for ecliptical. Good thing that didnt come up in the test, back then.

[QUOTE="-Austin-"]Science is right ALOT more than it is wrong. Saying science shouldn't be used to prove things as fact is very stupid.UltraZero

Yet a doubt lingers and when using those facts against religeon is something I advise against.

Sure, Science is so great that it can't solve the century long Bermuda Triangle question (As far as I'm upto date) but it still is true on many points, I admit it.

It has been siad time after time that science can't explain the supernatural.

[QUOTE="UltraZero"][QUOTE="-Austin-"]

Science is right ALOT more than it is wrong. Saying science shouldn't be used to prove things as fact is very stupid.

-Austin-

Yet a doubt lingers and when using those facts against religeon is something I advise against.

Sure, Science is so great that it can't solve the century long Bermuda Triangle question (As far as I'm upto date) but it still is true on many points, I admit it.

Science is more reliable than religion though. So obviously science is more apt to be correct than religion.

More reliable... Last I checked, Thats a matter of opinion which I dont agree on. Certain things were said on a certain religeon which science NOW found out being beneficial which we already knew from a certain prophet.

[

It has been siad time after time that science can't explain the supernatural.

scorch-62

[QUOTE="UltraZero"][QUOTE="-Austin-"]Science is right ALOT more than it is wrong. Saying science shouldn't be used to prove things as fact is very stupid.scorch-62

Yet a doubt lingers and when using those facts against religeon is something I advise against.

Sure, Science is so great that it can't solve the century long Bermuda Triangle question (As far as I'm upto date) but it still is true on many points, I admit it.

It has been siad time after time that science can't explain the supernatural.

So science admits that Bermuda Triangle is supernatural but doesnt admit on a human being able to resurrect others?

[QUOTE="-Austin-"][QUOTE="UltraZero"][QUOTE="-Austin-"]

Science is right ALOT more than it is wrong. Saying science shouldn't be used to prove things as fact is very stupid.

UltraZero

Yet a doubt lingers and when using those facts against religeon is something I advise against.

Sure, Science is so great that it can't solve the century long Bermuda Triangle question (As far as I'm upto date) but it still is true on many points, I admit it.

Science is more reliable than religion though. So obviously science is more apt to be correct than religion.

More reliable... Last I checked, Thats a matter of opinion which I dont agree on. Certain things were said on a certain religeon which science NOW found out being beneficial which we already knew from a certain prophet.

How is it an opinion? Science is based around evidence and religion is not. Simple as that.

[QUOTE="scorch-62"][QUOTE="UltraZero"][QUOTE="-Austin-"]Science is right ALOT more than it is wrong. Saying science shouldn't be used to prove things as fact is very stupid.UltraZero

Yet a doubt lingers and when using those facts against religeon is something I advise against.

Sure, Science is so great that it can't solve the century long Bermuda Triangle question (As far as I'm upto date) but it still is true on many points, I admit it.

It has been siad time after time that science can't explain the supernatural.

So science doesnt admit on a human being able to resurrect others?

Thats impossible.

[QUOTE="-Austin-"]

If you weren't certain you were right and everyone else was wrong you would probably be considered Agnostic.

UltraZero

"Just want to have a discussion against science for once, even tho, I'll fail at winning at it." Kinda sums it up.

My point is that using science to prove something to find false facts on religeon isn't something someone should do. Because there is a good religeous point I have that I want science to explain. A 1400 Year old story.

Excuse me? I don't know what your religious stance is but I have to say that I greatly disagree.

First off, agnosticism isn't "a discussion against science for once, even tho [sic], I'll fail at winning at it." In fact, I'd say agnostic is probably the most ideal standard for scientists because you're not biased to believing of a god nor are you bias of disbelieving a god, not that theists and atheists are bad scientists.

Secondly, I don't know what 1400 year old story you are referring to, but if you're against scientists evaluating parts of history, then I greatly disagree with you. If you are religious, then you should have no fear that a scientist would ever find evidence that would contradict your faith. And if does, then you should at the very minimum have to shift your perspective just a bit, but not enough to convert into another religion.

[QUOTE="UltraZero"][QUOTE="-Austin-"][QUOTE="UltraZero"][QUOTE="-Austin-"]

Science is right ALOT more than it is wrong. Saying science shouldn't be used to prove things as fact is very stupid.

-Austin-

Yet a doubt lingers and when using those facts against religeon is something I advise against.

Sure, Science is so great that it can't solve the century long Bermuda Triangle question (As far as I'm upto date) but it still is true on many points, I admit it.

Science is more reliable than religion though. So obviously science is more apt to be correct than religion.

More reliable... Last I checked, Thats a matter of opinion which I dont agree on. Certain things were said on a certain religeon which science NOW found out being beneficial which we already knew from a certain prophet.

How is it an opinion? Science is based around evidence and religion is not. Simple as that.

Religeon explains with, the evidence falls into supernatural things and as Scorch said above, "Science can't explain the supernatural". Did you know that, Religeon goes with Science? Religeon reasons with others. Such as idol worshippers, no offence to any out there.

Point being, Religeon does explains with evidence, some tend to not believe in the evidence.